Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdictionn Appellate Side Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 1031 of 2025 Ashok Tripathy Vs.

Tapan Kumar Adhya & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Firojuddin Islam Mr. Dhiman Roy Mr. Dip Chanda For the Opposite parties : Mr. Shubham Gupta Mr. Ashok Bhattacharyya Mr. Rajsekhar Bal Bakshi Heard On: : 28.03.2025 Judgment On: : 28.03. 2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the tenant and is directed against an order being no. 36 dated November 30, 2024 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 85 of

2019.

2.

By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for modification of the order being no. 26 dated February 27, 2023 was allowed. However, the application of the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permission to deposit the arrears of rent stood rejected by the impugned order.

3.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there was an error in the order passed under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act dated February 27, 2023 wherein the amount due from the tenant was specified. For correction of such error the petitioner filed an application for modification of the order dated 27^th February, 2023. He submits that the petitioner also filed an application praying for permission to deposit the arrear amount within the extended time.

4.

Learned advocate for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner did not deposit the amount as directed to be deposited by the order dated 27th February, 2023 passed under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. He submits that the petitioner filed the application praying for permission to deposit the arrear rent beyond the period of one month from the date of passing the order under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. By referring to sub-section 2 of Section 7 of the 1997 Act he submits that the prayer for extension ought to have been made prior to expiry of the period of one month from the date of the order passed under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Nilima Das Vs. Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF reported at 2016 5 CHN 367.

5.

In reply, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the proviso to Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act permits extension of time to deposit the arrear amount and the outer limit for such extension is two months. He submits that the application praying for permission to deposit was filed within the period of three months from the date of the order passed under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. He submits that the application for permission to deposit was in accordance with the proviso to Section 7(2) and in support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench delivered on 19^th January, 2022 in C.O. 1719 of 2021 in the case of Uttam Kumar Bagaria Vs M/s. O.T. Textile Private Limited. He also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin and others Vs.

Sita Ram Agarwal reported at AIR 2003 SC 1543 in support of his contention that where the statute provides the power to extend the time the court has the power to do so.

6.

Heard learned advocates of the parties and perused the materials placed.

7.

The application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was disposed of by an order dated February 27, 2023 upon holding that the defendant/petitioner herein is a defaulter in payment of rent from the month of May, 2007 to February 2023 for an amount of Rs. 62,700/- and the defendant is also liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum as statutory interest amounting to Rs. 39,996/-. The learned trial judge directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.

1,02,696/- within one